3 ms·

you're mostly arguing against a straw man, so i won't address those points, but there are still some interesting things you're wrong about. so even if you take

by smhost 7y ago

you're mostly arguing against a straw man, so i won't address those points, but there are still some interesting things you're wrong about. so even if you take away the controllers completely, decades of marketing industry research teaches us that you can train certain behaviors among media consumers. for example, chomsky talks about how the marketing industry targeted children's nagging behavior so that they will pester their parents to buy them products. and we all know about how bernays coopted feminist symbolism to sell cigarettes to women. video games are a lot more dynamic than traditional media, and it's harder to control and harder to analyze, so i would never say something so stupid as "video games cause gun violence," but a video game is not some kind of a magical medium that's exempt from the basic geometries of human psychology. part of the frustration is that we have no idea what the hell new media is doing to us.

learc83 7y ago
>you're mostly arguing against a straw man, so i won't address those points, but there are still some interesting things you're wrong about. So you're going to ignore basically my entire point. This: >other animal species use play as a way to simulate potentially dangerous scenarios in order to learn certain behaviors. Carries much stronger implications than--to paraphrase your new argument--video games can be used as an advertising medium. It may not have been your intention, but your first argument is the same argument that pundits use to argue that video games "train people to be killers." Even assuming that wasn't your intent, that animals use play to train for for combat is completely unrelated to a person on TV telling children to ask their parents for something. That's just a human using their persuasive abilities, it has nothing to do with simulated combat.

by smhost 7y ago

learc83 7y ago

>you're mostly arguing against a straw man, so i won't address those points, but there are still some interesting things you're wrong about. So you're going to ignore basically my entire point. This: >other animal species use play as a way to simulate potentially dangerous scenarios in order to learn certain behaviors. Carries much stronger implications than--to paraphrase your new argument--video games can be used as an advertising medium. It may not have been your intention, but your first argument is the same argument that pundits use to argue that video games "train people to be killers." Even assuming that wasn't your intent, that animals use play to train for for combat is completely unrelated to a person on TV telling children to ask their parents for something. That's just a human using their persuasive abilities, it has nothing to do with simulated combat.